User talk:DestPrince
Faction Inspiration This is not Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean articles shouldn't uphold a standard of professionalism. This kind of nonsense is going to be purged from this wiki, see this if you haven't already. Do not replace any of it again. [[user:tephra|◄► Tephra ◄►]] 20:28, July 1, 2015 (UTC) :Professionalism is treating this wiki like a encyclopedia of Mount&Blade rather than a fansite. This blog describes the kind of writing style that I consider to be the professionalism I would expect to see here. The Mount&Blade Wiki doesn't need to uphold quite as strict rules as Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean anything should go either. :If you felt that I was treating you like a blathering imbecile, that was not my intention. However, I was annoyed that you reverted everything that had been the very point of that first blog I had just finished writing (which I hope you had merely not seen). [[user:tephra|◄► Tephra ◄►]] 06:23, July 2, 2015 (UTC) I will break down your rather large response by section, I will also explain in more detail why I decided to remove the inspirations at the end: #You ask why tactics are not removed. The difference is that these are making suggestions, not claims. Tactical information is relevant and is based on experience (as you point out) which is useful to inexperienced players. See the Opinions and absolutes segment on my editing tips. Opinions are permitted here, but only when being used as a suggestion, not making a statement of (unverifiable) fact. #You ask why mods are not removed, saying they are irrelevant. They are mods for Mount&Blade, that makes them relevant. That said, I will note that mods are segregated from the main wiki, I do remove most references to mods from any article not about mods. #You ask why Emir was deleted. It wasn't, I moved it from the inspiration section to the intro where it is said that Sarranid lords are called Emirs. See here. #You say it is bad to delete well-written information when someone else can look it up and counter my claims. That is the opposite of what I want, looking up and countering my claims is exactly what was not being done. I said in my faction inspiration blog that information with a solid source (i.e. looking it up and countering my claim) would not be deleted. The only way to counter my claim would be to have a developer state what inspired them. And should a dev state that somewhere, I would completely support putting that sourced, now-relevant, and non-speculative information in. #Your next paragraph is simply wrong. Encyclopedias do not embrace conjecture regardless of how faint a correlation between two things may seem. Encyclopedias do not have to present all information, including the trivial ones. Information that is only superficially related to their subject matter is not still information that has to be presented. #You might not have expected a response to this, but you said as an admin, this is my wikia and I have the final say in what can go in and what can't go in. That's not entirely true, wikis do not belong to the admins, and we aren't supposed to have the final say. Although Wikia blatantly ignores admins who act this way and have publically stated they will take no action against admins who abuse their power, I tend to try following Wikia's expectations. However, I have not written you off (I am still responding, as you can see) and I did write that blog to explain the reason for what I was doing before anyone objected (I will point out here that you reverted my edits without any discussion). Now, let me further expand on my decision to purge the inspirations. I did consider a compromise before choosing that complete erasure was the best course of action. The compromise would be a notification at the top of the inspiration sections that made it plain that the following would be speculation. I did not present this compromise for multiple reasons. Firstly, as noted in my blog, editors were consistently taking issues with the inspiration sections (around once a month, more or less, the sections were being edited again), nobody could agree since none of it is based on fact. Secondly, allowing speculation labeled as speculation is a dangerous door to open, as it provides justification for even more speculation elsewhere (I will get people saying, why can't I add this drivel, you allow the faction inspirations to stay). Finally, as long as it isn't verified, it is irrelevant, I still can't figure out why people care so much about something based on 100% speculation - they should use the time wasted on writing speculation to try contacting TaleWorlds and get an official statement from a developer, that would be so much more productive. [[user:tephra|◄► Tephra ◄►]] 17:58, July 3, 2015 (UTC)